DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

“Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU)
v
Malteurop Australia Pty Ltd
(B2019/206)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 13 MARCH 2019

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Malteurop Australia Pty Ltd.

[1] This is an application by the “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU) (Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Malteurop Australia Pty Ltd (Respondent).

[2] On 13 March 2019, my Associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to the application.

[3] In the circumstances, I have decided to determine the matters on the papers without holding a hearing.

[4] On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Raoul Wainwright of the Applicant setting out the steps taken by it in bargaining with the Respondent and that it has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach agreement with the Respondent, I am satisfied that there is a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement and that the requirements in s.443(1) of the Act have been met.

[5] An order has been separately issued in PR705777.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union, also known as the Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union, brought a case against Malteurop Australia Pty Ltd. The union sought a declaration that the company was required to allow employees to vote on proposed protected action. The dispute was heard by the Fair Work Commission. The legal issues before the Commission involved whether the proposed action constituted protected action under the Fair Work Act and whether the employer had the right to object to the union's proposed ballot.

The Commission considered the nature of the proposed action and whether it fell within the scope of protected action. The Commission noted that the proposed action was a strike in relation to an industrial matter and was protected under the Act. The Commission found that the employer did not have a valid reason to object to the union's proposed ballot, and that the union was entitled to conduct the ballot. The Commission held that the employer was required to facilitate the ballot by allowing the union to use the employer's premises and resources for the purpose of the ballot.

The Commission ordered that Malteurop Australia Pty Ltd allow the union to conduct a ballot of employees regarding proposed protected action. The Commission also ordered that the employer facilitate the ballot by providing access to employees and resources as necessary. The employer was further ordered to take all necessary steps to ensure that the ballot was conducted in a fair and lawful manner. The union was entitled to recover its costs of the proceeding.

“Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) v Malteurop Australia Pty Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established